$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010107232026 + BAIL APPLN. 1127/2026 ANIL KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Karan Verma, Mr. Nayan Maggo and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 13.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’)/Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 93/2023 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi, under Sections 419/420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). 3. Briefly stated, the present FIR came to be registered on the basis of complaints received in respect of property bearing No. D-183, Anand Vihar, New Delhi. During preliminary enquiry, it was alleged that an imposter, posing as the registered owner, Smt. Sarla Gupta, had fraudulently sold the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 10:55:55 said property on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. One such sale deed dated 14.10.2022 was executed in favour of Akash Sharma, who obtained a housing loan of approximately Rs.1.25 crores from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. against the said property. 4. During investigation, it was alleged that the transactions were part of a larger conspiracy wherein forged documents and an imposter owner were used for obtaining loans from financial institutions. The petitioner is alleged to be one of the key persons of the syndicate and a sum of Rs.31,00,000/- is stated to have been transferred from the bank account of the imposter Sarla Gupta to the petitioner’s account. It is further alleged that the petitioner was present at the time of execution of the sale deed and was connected with the other persons involved in the transaction. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the chargesheet was filed before the learned Trial Court about one year ago, copy thereof was not supplied to the petitioner and it was only after the intervention of this Court that the same was supplied to him. He submits that such delay in supply of the chargesheet amounts to violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the judgment of this Court in Jawed Imam Siddiqui v. Directorate of Enforcement, BAIL APPLN. 1864/2024, decided on 13.11.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has no role to play in the entire transaction and rather the main accused persons have been allowed to go scot-free by the Investigating Officer and no action has been taken against them. He submits that the amount received in the account of the petitioner was only on account of a business transaction and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 10:55:55 has no connection with the present transaction, as the petitioner is only a property dealer. 7. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the present case pertains to a profile funding scam, wherein the accused persons would identify a vacant property and thereafter, one of them would pose as the seller and another as the purchaser. They would also create fake documents in respect of the property and obtain loans from financial institutions on the basis of such documents. He submits that complaints were received from the financial institutions and, therefore, the present investigation was undertaken. He further submits that the petitioner is the mastermind and a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- was transferred to his account from the account of a co- accused. He further submits that the accused and the other co-accused persons are still being investigated and that, not only in the present case, there are two more FIRs against the petitioner having the same modus operandi. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIRs by the High Court of Allahabad and that he has no role to play in the present case. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. So far as the non-supply of the chargesheet is concerned, the Status Report filed by the State clearly states that though the chargesheet was filed, cognizance had not been taken by the learned Trial Court. Subsequently, after taking cognizance, the learned Trial Court summoned the accused persons and supplied them a copy of the chargesheet in accordance with law. 11. The allegations against the petitioner are quite heinous. No doubt, the matter is at the stage of scrutiny of documents before the learned Trial Court; however, keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the gravity of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 10:55:55 offence, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 14. Nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 13, 2026/prg/Av This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/08/2026 at 10:55:55